Bounties Budget Baby

GM Giving builders!

It’s my pleasure to announce that our small DeWork pilot was an outstanding success with most tasks being applied to & resolved on the same day.

To take the next steps, the advice of the community will be very important to build some collective intelligence. As well as, achieving some soft consensus on the details of the proposal.

Proposal TL;DR

Request a 10,000 USD budget in GIV to begin using bounties for all WG ASAP, while working groups assess their bounty needs and create their own budgets.

Proposal rationale.

A bounty system to outsource tasks has these main benefits:

  1. Keep core contributors focused on the key objectives of Giveth roadmap and their WG.

  2. Decrease bottlenecks.

  3. Find the right people to perform talent-specific tasks.

  4. Engage with more talent and let them see how awesome Giveth is.

  5. Support in the decentralization of tasks and operations.

  6. Have a trial environment to assess new contributors & an easy onboard system. (We might uSe a different System for thiS later on)

Additionally, this is a great baby step into intra-working group governance part of the Giveth HR upgrading. Creating their bounty budget is probably their first official governance and budget management.

Let’s dig in to get your advice:

2 Steps process:

We already have several bounties ready to go. I think it’s best to get a quick solution a.k.a. a general budget for all WG to start using ASAP. Some WG stewards have mentioned that it’s hard to assess what will be a good budget. This will help them to understand their bounty needs. WG can ask their own bounty budget once they are ready. Then we can decide if we should keep a general bounty budget to have an option ready in case a WG need extra funds in a short timeframe

Is this the right way to go?

  • Yes, LFG
  • We should only have a general bounty budget
  • We should wait till WG made their own budgets

0 voters

How much?

To avoid time & energy spent by all parties in passing proposals too often. I suggest starting with a 10,000 USD bounty budget on GIV tokens for all working groups.

Would this be a good amount to start?

  • Nah, that’s too much.
  • I think that’s about right.
  • I think we should go higher, a few dev projects might eat that in no time.

0 voters

Paying process…

I think we should create a new account to manage bounties exclusively. But there is a trade-off for managing it:

Multi-sig account: Best practice to prevent any bad management.

Non-multi-sig account: Since the general bounties account will not have “that much money” it can be worth it to be managed only by one trusted party to make the process leaner. (i.e. Freshelle)

What do you think…

  • Multi-sig - best practices ALWAYS.
  • Let’s go lean and efficient

0 voters

I think that covers the most important things. Am I forgetting anything?

2 Likes

Thank you so much for getting this bounty structure out! Of course I have many thoughts and I will elaborate more on some crucial points we’ll need to hash out.

Bounty Consensus

First of all, to begin we need a way for DAO members to approve spending funds on a particular bounty. How can we be transparent and get signalling on a bounty before we send it to DeWork and importantly before anyone starts to work on it?

I would suggest to start simply creating a forum category, viewable for contributors only, to post bounties for review before they move to DeWork. I would suggest the forum since it’s actively viewed and currently where most of our Advice Process takes place. I would suggest making it @contributor only since only the people in the know should be able to comment and signal approval.

We could call this category simply the “Bounty Approval Board”

Bounty Treasury Management

I didn’t answer the poll above because I wanted to propose a third option…

We have a Finance App on the nrGIV that is currently used for nothing… this would allow us to manage, track and propose payments with GIV or any other ERC-20 token.
https://xdai.aragon.blossom.software/#/nrgiv/0x1b75b2adc4fcea2dc946701cdc3abd4fdfa412da/

It currently has all the permissions setup for nrGIV holders to vote on them through the 5 day voting App…
https://xdai.aragon.blossom.software/#/nrgiv/0x749cccd03c00110cf76f4e009c6eaf59b5f2bd0e/

And the actual Vault holding funds can be found here:
https://xdai.aragon.blossom.software/#/nrgiv/0x2fa20fa7fc404d35748497c0f28f8fb2f8731336/

This I think would be the best route to manage bounties rather than creating a new multisig to manage bounties and allows us to move more smoothly into WG specific budgets.

Bounty Budgeting

From the approved vesting distribution method we decided to withhold an amount of GIV allocated to vesting to avoid overspending.

Just from this last distribution (Q1 2022) we withheld almost 3.5 Million GIV in the nrGIV, this is around $210k at current GIV prices. $10k worth of GIV is definitely feasible for a beginning bounty budget!

LFG! :fire:

3 Likes

Love the energy and suggestions @mitch

I agree with all the advice above as a starting point. Then we can see if anything needs to be improved.

1 Like

Also I wanted to tag on this from the pilot @Cotabe mentioned I created and paid out two bounties, for translating our $nice token article into Spanish and Turkish. This was an initiative on my part to see if DeWork actually… works.

I kid you not guys, the work was picked up on DeWork, submitted and done in 24 hours, it was LIGHTNING :zap:

However it was done too fast and we didn’t have funds to pay these contributors, so in order to expedite the process I paid those bounties out of my own pocket. I would like to tag on my request for reimbursement for the 1900 GIV (950 x2) spent on those bounties.

Sounds good?

  • Sure, thanks Mitch for spotting us.
  • Nah dude, you’re SOL.
  • Abstain

0 voters

1 Like

Wow @mitch!! You always have such great ideas and feedback! I LOVE what you proposed about using the Finance App that we already have and I think it is a great middle ground for transitioning to WG budgets and WG tokens as per the HR Upgrade Initiative…

As long as this doesn’t become a bottleneck, I think it’s safe enough to try…
Its important to have community support especially for the bigger bounties offered.

  • Would it require the same 5 days in the forum?
    So, it would be 5 days in the forum > the bounty goes to the Dework board > its completed > the vote goes to the DAO to pay the funds > 5 days later the person gets paid (as long as it passes)

What happens if the bounty passes the approval in the forum, the person completes the bounty, but then the bounty doesn’t pass in the DAO to get paid out? Then what do we do?

1 Like

To clarify the Bounty Approval Board would only be viewable and accessible by contributors, similar to how our Role Proposals category currently works.

I’m open to more ideas than the forum category but we know that the forum is already high visibility and has been effective for advice process and soft signalling. The important point is we need to collectively approve spending bounty funds before the work starts. When we have WG specific bounty budgets obviously we can lower the scope of these decisions.

5 day Advice Process I think is important, similar to other priority issues we could skip the 5 day minimum if it’s explicitly mentioned. Of course, skipping advice process increases the risk of failure when it comes to the DAO vote. So the proposer should exercise caution if they want to post a bounty without advice or signalling.

This is not an extraordinary edge case, we could have the same thing happen with GIVbacks, it hasn’t happened yet though (with the exception of missing quorum)! :crossed_fingers: I say if the bounty fails at any stage its the responsibility of the proposer, not the DAO to rectify things.

I really love the discussion here.

I think it would be useful to differentiate bounties by size.

If all bounties even 400 GIV bounties (~20 USD) go through the forum and DAO vote. This might make bounties way more expensive due to all the energy that voting takes. Maybe we could have a threshold for bounties to skip the process and be chosen within the WG.

Whereas high bounties should not skip the advice and governance process.

Thoughts?
@WhyldWanderer @mitch

:thinking:

I think both of you are aiming at the same “bottleneck” however you would have the same issue with a DAO vote rather than a multisig. I can see how lots of these small bounties would either eat lots of bandwidth or suffer from lack of engagement.

How would we keep track of someone passing 10 bounties for 400 GIV under the radar vs 1 bounty for 4000 GIV that would need due process?

Maybe…

We could have an easy to fill template and loose posting requirements on the forum bounty board, we can also set aside time on the gov call to “fast track” bounties, the same way we move through active DAO votes. This would allow us to get soft consensus right on the call and move it straight to DeWork.

This means if you know what your bounties are and have them ready they could be approved in an hour instead of 5 days. The call notes will serve as “proof-of-advice”, “fast-tracked” bounties wouldn’t need to be on the forum and instead we will have the github issues created on DeWork for accountability.

If the bounty is a higher price, on the gov call we can decide if we approve them there or let them go through regular advice process on the forum.

I don’t think having fixed price thresholds is great, makes more work to monitor and creates more edge cases, having some blanket general rules and relying on organic advice and consensus might make it easier for now…

2 Likes

Is this $10k monthly or just $10k in general until we run out?
I think $10k is a bit high and I’d propose $5k.

I’ll revert on other topics and proposal from Mitch.

I like the idea of having time on the gov call to get advice and fast-track bounties.

If something needs to pass before the gov call. The proposer can take responsibility for that as you mentioned here

However, having it on the governance call it’s not a step forward in the WG governance and budget management. Maybe once WG budgets are passed, the fast-tracking of bounties using that budgets can be in the calls of each WG. What do you think?

Right now, this is for the bounties of all WG. We can go through the gov call route, try it out see how it works and take it from there.

1 Like

It’s not monthly. It’s a general budget from which all WG can take budget while each working group gets its own budget. Which could be in a month. But most likely with the events to come… it might take 2 or 3 months.

What do you mean with this?

From the DeWork integration perspective payment methods on DeWork configuration are Metamask, Gnosis Safe, Hiro and Phantom Wallet.

Does Finance App enters into one of these categories?

Agree, once we have WG specific budgets then the WG’s can decide how they want to spend their budgets and we don’t need to take time from the gov call.

Oof, that’s a tough blocker, I think we can use Frame to use the agent like a metamask wallet. I will have to come back and test this.

2 Likes

The way I understood it was that each WG gets $10k monthly, or initial budget, which I thought was too much for each WG to kickstart this.

Oh no, that’s not what I meant:

The proposal is to have $10K as a general budget from which all WG can ask for their bounties. But it’s not $10K each, it’s 10K FOR ALL.

It is a quick fix, to have liquidity for bounties while WG creates their own bounties budgets.

2 Likes

It’s been over 5 days of amazing advice process.

Here are the results:

  • 100% say LFG (9/9)

  • 75% Think we should go with 10K or above (3 say we should go higher, 3 say that’s about right and 2 say its too much). Sidenote, I believe some of the later had the misconception that it would be 10K per WG, instead of 10K for a general bounty budget.

Since, a big part of the team is soon go on vacay and soon won’t be able to vote & we will be using funds from the team budget (NRGIV)… I wanna push the vote to the NRGIV with 10K which seems to be a good threshold for approval.

There is soft consensus on using both the Forum and the Governance call to pass bounties in this first iteration.

There is only one thing to sort out before the vote… the wallet. Mitch tried to hack the Finance App. But turns out it’s gonna be way more complicated. So, we believe a multisig with fewer signatures required it’s the way to go since it’s not that much money and probably will be frequent transactions.

I’m suggesting a 2/5 multisig with these people that are either engaged in this initiative or just very available. Here are my nominees:

  • Ashley
  • Mitch
  • Giantkin
  • Myself (Cotabe)
  • Freshelle
  • Yes to the multisig and yes to the signers
  • Yes to the multisig. I wanna suggest different signers
  • I have a different idea

0 voters

3 Likes
  1. the Signers. I know mitch has review ability, does any of the others? if not, we are all just following mitch.
  2. bounty process in dework, should be alot simplier. maybe designate one WS to do all the bounty loads/payouts, and get reimbursement from each WG (monthly fill?) (after this initial setup)
    in dework, you can setup the bounties, but not share them to public intially. we can also setup a role, so that a group of TRUSTED bounty workers, get to see it first. etc. (so , initial setup of bounty for review, then shared to trusted, and if they dont take it in a week (or 3 days etc) move it to public.)

My 2 sats. (oh, i’ll agree to above, if thats whats decided of course, just offering other thoughts)

1 Like

Thanks for throwing this up!

I would like to point out that 2/5 is a sort of weak threshold for a multisig, I would suggest perhaps a 3/7. If not now then perhaps a fast follow just so we don’t hold up the process right now

I would nominate
@markop and @MoeNick if they would like to be on the bounty multisig.

1 Like

Im okay, so I’ll be more active to create dev issues for bouty board.

I’m also fine with this proposal.